I still fail to see how it is entirely the fault of one player that they did not play on winning teams. I mentioned Butkus and Sayers earlier for a reason; they are loved, and yet their only winning seasons came when they were rookies in 1965. That they were good players is because they were good players and produced, not because of whether or not their teammates were talented. Jon Garland is not a better pitcher than Chris Sale, despite the fact that the former has a world series ring and played on mostly winning Sox teams, where Sale has played on mostly mediocre and bad teams.

In Cincinnati and in Washington, Dunn produced to the benefit of his team. In Chicago, his production has failed to live up to his previous standards. But I don't see how Dunn's 38 HRs and 105 RBIs (or his .398 OBP and .529 slugging) for the 2009 Nationals somehow caused them to lose 103 games. He had a slightly worse 2010 for them, and they won 10 more games. Dunn was not the only factor as to how the team performed.

Also, while Banks and Appling played in a different era, their teams were seldom even good.

we had this same argument at work ---does that mean Bill Wennington was a better center than Pat Ewing is the example I used